Social Justice at the Heart: Green Party’s Clause 4 Moment at Nottingham Conference 2013
On Friday Britain lost its ‘Triple-A Credit Rating’ as a result of a Westminster Government seeking to reverse all the gains made by working people over the past 170 years. It has never been more important for the Green Party to assert its position as the only party that can stand up to the destruction of England’s NHS in parliament, the only party that is providing an alternative to the cuts narrative and the only party that can stand up for the young, the poor and those with disabilities.
This weekend’s Green Party (of England and Wales) conference in Nottingham may be the turning point in creating a party to give that voice to those who not only disagree with austerity but want to see a real alternative. The Green Party is the party for those who want more than a managed decline into plutocracy. The centre point of the conference was a revision of the Philosophical Basis of the party, written by Young Green Josiah Mortimer. The Party’s Philosophical Basis sets out what the fundamental beliefs of the party are. While this is not a matter of policy that has a direct impact on the actions of Green elected representatives it may be much more important than that.
In a debate that involved a wide range of contributors speaking from the heart the party voted by over 70% to move to a clause that reads:
“The Green Party is a party of social and environmental justice which supports a radical transformation of society for the benefit of all, and for the planet as a whole. We understand that the threats to economic, social and environmental wellbeing are part of the same problem, and recognise that solving one of these crises cannot be achieved without solving the others.”
The motion preamble read:
“A system based on inequality and exploitation is threatening the future of the planet on which we depend, and encouraging reckless and environmentally damaging consumerism. A world based on cooperation and democracy would prioritise the many, not the few, and would not risk the planet’s future with environmental destruction and unsustainable consumption.
The Green Party isn’t just another political party. Green politics is a new and radical kind of politics guided by these core principles.
The highlight of the debate was the first conference speech from Elliot Folan, who urged conference to accept in its philosophical basis that it had become the natural home for anti-cuts activists, social justice activists and anyone who wanted a better future for people and planet. Saying “I joined because it’s the the party which stands up for me as a young person, a student, an autistic person”. He pointed out that he had become an environmentalist because the Green Party stood up for students abandoned by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Changing the Philosophical Basis has the potential to be like Labour’s Clause 4 moment – a transformational change in the way a party understands itself and asks to be understood. Except this is not an abandonment of the people we should represent, but a realignment with those who will benefit most from Green politics. The objection from one member that this might prevent “people like Zak Goldsmith from joining” had little traction. What did have traction was a positive vision of Green politics as a radical force.
The fringe on where the Green Party should go next with party veteran Sara Parkin and Bright Green’s very own Adam Ramsay built on this platform. They outlined a vision of the Green Party at the heart of a social movement. This is a movement that could fundamentally change the direction of British politics, providing a solution to the economic and environmental crises. This was a refreshingly optimistic approach to politics, and emphasised the need to work both inside and outside elected politics, like Greek Coalition of the Radical Left, SYRIZA. There was a very strong feeling that the days of both European social democracy and neo-liberalism were numbered.
So this conference changed the philosophical basis and marked the start of a fundamental change in Green Party strategy. With social justice at the heart of the party and a social movement around us we can make a real difference. It’s time to make the vision come true.
I actually seem to agree with almost everything that has been composed within “Social
Justice at the Heart: Green Party’s Clause 4 Moment at
Nottingham Conference 2013 | Bright Green”. Thank you for all the
tips.I appreciate it-Sidney
“On Friday Britain lost its ‘Triple-A Credit Rating’ as a result of a Westminster Government seeking to reverse all the gains made by working people over the past 170 years.”
Where does this sort of statement even come from?! How was the AAA rating based on 170 years or working people? It’s the recent opinion of some discredited banker-wannabes – why does it even matter to what you’re aspiring to?
Yes! But to persuade people very far from this viewpoint, people who say “But where is the money going to come from?” or “What about population – the unmentionable problem?” (I hear these objections all the time) – you need to explain further. You need to say “The money comes from greater redistribution from rich to poor, and spreading the wealth around instead of keeping it in the hands of the few – leads to wider social welfare and education – and YES! this is the thing that leads to family planning and fewer children being born.”
Yes, well, I’m hoping an other improvement will follow from this. I’m hoping a condensed version will be available for twitter and people with limited attention span, life commitments other than policy, sort of thing.
Exactly, syrizia is the model we should be aspiring to
Good stuff!
All this talk of Clause IV
There has been some talk (as above) following the adoption of the new pre-amble to the philosophical basis, suggesting that this demonstrates some kind of “clause IV” moment, but in reverse.
I can’t quite see it myself – and I might just be being to literal with this, but that’s the way I am – but if you sit down and read the 4 separate bits (old/new Clause IV, old/new PB) then the comparison is actually closer between the new version of both, and the biggest divergence is between the old versions of both.
This begs the question – so what, is this as momentous a change, as the 1993 change to Clause IV – and I think the answer is maybe, but probably not. I think the reason for this lies in two things. First, is the significance of the type of change which took place in 1993. Secondly is the relationship between the change itself, and the mood of the party.
The Labour Clause IV of 1918 is quite specific, it’s a part of the principle basis of the party, and it contains within it both the ends which the party will seek, and the means with which it is proposed to do it. The new clause IV only outlines some quite general means, phrases like “the many, not the few” and “true potential” are all quite soft and difficult to define, and it is silent on how this will work.
The differential between the old clause IV and the new clause IV is stark, but the old/new sections of our PB are really quite close to each other – evolution rather than revolution. In addition to this, our new PB isn’t anything like as specific about means to the end as the old clause IV. No commitment to nationalization in there at all.
Tony Blair (not so?) famously wrote a pamphlet for the Fabian society which was critical of the inclusion of means and ends – describing it as confusing. This was, as we now know, not really the point. The old clause IV didn’t provide a future leader the opportunity to privitise the NHS, start the great school sell off or initiate the biggest economic crisis in history. It was pretty clear with regards nationalization and distribution, but Tony clearly was not. The change in Clause IV opened up an avenue, which allowed the Labour party to chart a different course to the one it was on at the time.
The recent change to our philosophical basis doesn’t do this, the PB doesn’t open anything new up, there were speakers on the floor who highlighted this – the PB is running to catch up with the party, rather than the party having to get used to a new PB.
Labour 1918 Version:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
Labour 1993 Version:
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
Green Party 200(?) Version:
Life on Earth is under immense pressure. It is human activity, more than anything else, which is threatening the well-being of the environment on which we depend. Conventional politics has failed us because its values are fundamentally flawed.
The Green Party isn’t just another political party. Green politics is a new and radical kind of politics guided by these core principles;
Green Party 2012 Version:
A system based on inequality and exploitation is threatening the future of the planet on which we depend, and encouraging reckless and environmentally damaging consumerism.
A world based on cooperation and democracy would prioritise the many, not the few, and would not risk the planet’s future with environmental destruction and unsustainable consumption.
The Green Party isn’t just another political party. Green politics is a new and radical kind of politics guided by these core principles: